Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Since these writ applications have been filed for common relief challenging the order of their termination issued by the respondent authorities vide notification contained in memo no. 936 dated 8th May, 2004, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that by virtue of the order impugned they have been terminated from services almost after sixteen years of their continuous services as Assistant Teachers in different secondary schools without any enquiry or issuance of show cause notice to them. It is, therefore, submitted that the order impugned is arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, in violation of the principles of natural justice and wholly without jurisdiction. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, it appears that the writ petitioners and several others were appointed on the post of Assistant Teachers by the respondent authorities after following the procedures of appointment. They continued in services and all of a sudden, by virtue of the order impugned issued in the month of May, 2004, were terminated only on the ground that their appointments were found to be forged. 5. Counsel for the State, with reference to their counter affidavits, submitted that since the appointments of the petitioners were found to be forged one and ab initio void, the authorities decided to terminate them. 6. It is not disputed by the respondent authorities that no opportunity whatsoever was given to the writ petitioners or similarly situated persons who were terminated. According to their own case, it appears that their appointment letters were examined which were found to be forged but at no point of time, any opportunity of hearing was given to them. It also does not appear to be a case where formal show cause notice was issued to the petitioners or similarly situated persons to put forth their defence. 7. The order impugned appears to have been issued by the authorities without following the procedures of law and applying the principles of natural justice. In view of these admitted facts, we are of the view that the order impugned is wholly without jurisdiction and violative of the principles of natural justice. 8. The minimum requirement for the respondent authorities was to follow the rules of law by at least giving an opportunity to explain the circumstances to the affected persons. In view of these admitted facts, we are of the view that the order impugned is wholly without jurisdiction and violative of the principles of natural justice. 8. The minimum requirement for the respondent authorities was to follow the rules of law by at least giving an opportunity to explain the circumstances to the affected persons. That also since has not been done, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 9. For the reasons aforementioned and in view of the admitted facts referred to above, these writ applications are allowed. Orders impugned so far the writ petitioners are concerned, are set aside. 10. The authorities, however, if so advised, will be at liberty to proceed in the matter in accordance with law in case such exigency arises to weed out the fake appointees. 11. No costs.